Karnataka High Court
Sri. J.C. Changappa vs Sri K H Puttaraju on 24 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.37 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. J.C. CHANGAPPA
S/O LATE CHEEYANNA J K
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT 8/12, SRI LGGUTHAPPA MANE
BEGIHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
JIGANI POST, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE 560105
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SURESH SUBBAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed SRI K H PUTTARAJU
by DEVIKA M S/O LATE HONNASIDDAPPA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
KARNATAKA R/AT RAMAMANDIR ROAD,
OLD GURUKULA SCHOOL BUILDING
KIDUR TOWN AND VILLAGE,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMAMANAGAR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
PASSED BY THE APPELLANT COURT LXIV ADDL. CITY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
CRL.RP No. 37 of 2024
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY DATED
01.12.2023 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.182/2021 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Inspite of service of notice, the respondent did
not choose to appear before this Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission and the
matter is heard on merits.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the
complainant before the Trial Court that the accused had
approached the complaint in the first week of March 2017
and requested for hand loan of Rs.4,00,000/- for his legal
and family necessities. Complainant considering the
request of the accused, paid the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
on 13.03.2017 and accused agreed to repay the same
within six months and after the lapse of six months,
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
accused had not repaid the amount and on demand, the
accused issued a Cheque towards repayment of the loan
amount and on instructions of the accused, the said
Cheque was presented and the same was dishonoured
with an endorsement 'funds insufficient' and hence, notice
was issued and same was served and inspite of service of
notice, the accused has not given any reply or repaid the
amount. Hence, complaint was filed.
4. The Trial Court also taken the cognizance of the
offence and secured the accused and when the accused
did not plead guilty, proceeded for the trial. In order to
substantiate the case of the complainant, he examined
himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to
P8. On the other hand, accused examined himself as DW1
and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D9. The Trial
Court having considered both oral and documentary
evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that
the documents which have been produced before the
Court is very clear that Cheque was signed by the accused
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
and notice was also served on him but he has not replied
to the said notice and also the complainant stated that he
came to know that the accused through his wife since he
used to do the saree business. It is also taken note of the
fact that accused also admitted about the acquaintance
with the complainant. In the evidence accused, he stated
that in the course of business, complainant approached
the wife for sale of the saree and the complainant was
agreed to hand over stocks in the credit facilities for that
complainant and contend that Cheque was given as
security for the business of his wife and no transaction
was taken place of hand loan as contended by the
complainant. Accused in support of his defence marked
Ex.D1 to D9 and these receipts do not disclose any loan
transaction existing between wife of the accused and the
complainant. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that
though the accused raised many defences, but failed to
rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act by
leading credible evidence and convicted the accused and
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,10,000/- as against the
Cheque amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and
sentence, filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.187/2021 and the
First Appellate Court also having taken note of the fact
that no dispute with regard that the Cheque belongs to the
accused. When, the said Cheque was presented, same was
dishonoured and legal notice also served and not replied to
the said notice. The First Appellate Court also comes to the
conclusion that the document at Ex.D1 to D9 placed before
the Court evidences the fact that there is only saree
business between wife of the accused as well as
complainant. When the accused admits that Cheque
belongs to the bank account maintained by him, it bares
the signature and also admits the issuance of the Cheque,
Section 20 of the N.I. Act comes into operation and the
provision empowers the holder in due course to complete
the inchoate Negotiable Instrument/Cheque. The First
Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the only
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
contention taken that the Cheque which was issued in
favour of the complainant was misused and filed the false
complaint, but no cogent material is placed to show that
the said Cheque was given only for the purpose of
security. Thus, confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence and
confirmation, the present petition is filed.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner before this Court that both the Courts
committed an error in appreciating the material available
on record. But the fact that the complainant know the
accused through his wife while doing saree business at
police quarters. It is admitted by the complainant with
regard to the saree business between the wife of the
accused and the complainant. The counsel submits that
the complainant was not having the source and means to
pay the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. The complainant in his
complaint at Ex.P1, legal notice at Ex.P6 and affidavit filed
by way of his evidence not stated anything about the
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
means and source and admitted that only Rs.5,00,000/- to
Rs.6,00,000/- income to the complainant and if that
amount was deducted for personal expenses of family, no
source of income. The counsel also contends that the
complainant has not produced any documents for having
advanced loan except the Cheque and admitted that no
documents are obtained and these are the evidences are
not considered by the Trial Court and the Trial Court
committed an error. the counsel also would vehemently
contend that Ex.P1 is also altered and no authorized
signature of the executant of the Cheque and hence,
prayed this Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and also on perusal of the material available
on record, the point that would arise for consideration of
this Court are?
1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused
and whether the First Appellate Court committed
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
an error in confirming the order of the Trial
Court and whether it requires interference of this
Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction in
coming to the conclusion that both orders of the
respective Courts suffer from its legality and
correctness?
2. What order?
Point No.1:
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and also on perusal of the material available
on record, it discloses that it is the case of the complainant
that for the family necessities of the petitioner, an amount
of Rs.4,00,000/- was advanced and agreed to repay the
same within six months but he did not repaid the amount
within six months and on demand, the accused issued a
subject matter of the Cheque and on presentation of the
said Cheque, the same was dishonoured with an
endorsement 'funds insufficient'. It is important to note
that notice was issued to the accused. The counsel for the
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
petitioner submits that same was not served but the
counsel for the complainant produced the document at
Ex.P6 to show that the said document contains the
signature of the petitioner and the counsel for the
petitioner contends that said signature not belongs to the
petitioner. It is important to note that when his signature
is disputed by the petitioner, no step was taken to send
the document to hand writing expert denying his signature
on Ex.P6.
9. It is important to note that in the cross-
examination of PW1, it is elicited that complainant used to
visit the quarters for saree business and there he came to
know about the accused through his wife. No doubt, there
is an admission with regard to the fact that accused came
to know him while doing saree business. The complainant
also admits that though having paid the money, not
obtained any document and only relied upon the Cheque
at Ex.P1. It is important to note that a suggestion was
made that in 2015, the subject matter of the Cheque was
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
obtained as a security and the said suggestion was
categorically denied by the complainant and there is no
admission with regard to having taken the same as
security by the accused. No doubt, complainant admits
that his wife name is Sarojamma but suggestion was made
that his wife name is Damayanthi and the same was
denied. It is admitted that there was a saree business
between the complainant and wife of the accused. Though
denied that amounts were paid through bank and
confronted the documents of receipts and the same was
marked as Ex.D1 to D9 and same is having made the
payment by the wife of the accused.
10. The main contention of the petitioner counsel
that there was a saree business between the wife of the
accused and the complainant and defence was taken that
said Cheque was given in connection with saree business.
When DW1 examined before the Trial Court, even he
denies the averments of his own chief evidence but admits
that he has not given any such details to the counsel but
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
admits the signature and admits the address mentioned in
Ex.P6 and also admits that different address was given in
the chief evidence and the same is written in manuscript
and also admits that the address mentioned in Ex.P4 and
P6 belongs to him but he claims that the said property was
sold in January but not placed any documents in this
regard. Apart from that even gone to the extent of filing
of revision petition which is marked as Ex.P8 and Ex.P8 is
a revision petition filed by the accused. The Court has to
take note of the very conduct and demeanor of the
petitioner when he himself denies the details mentioned in
the chief evidence and also though contend that signature
not belongs to him at Ex.P6, no step was taken. Apart
from that when the complainant confronted the document
of Ex.P8 that is revision petition filed by the petitioner
himself, same is also denied. The document also placed to
show that in respect of the very same address, notice was
given but no reply was given.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
11. The petitioner relies upon the documents at
Ex.D1 to D9 and the complainant also not disputes the fact
that there was a saree business between himself and the
wife of the accused. When such averment is made by the
complainant that he came to know about the accused
through his wife while doing saree business with the wife
of the accused, same cannot be a ground to comes to the
conclusion that Cheque was not given in respect of any
loan availed by the accused. The Trial Court and the First
Appellate Court came to the conclusion that once the
Cheque was admitted and signature also admitted, the
Court has to draw the presumption under Section 139 of
N.I. Act and mere production of document of bank receipts
having accused wife was having business of saree with the
complainant, same cannot be considered as a plausible
evidence to comes to the conclusion that there was no
transaction between the accused and the complainant and
there must be a preponderance of probabilities and though
such defence was taken and same was denied by PW1 in
the cross-examination and nothing is elicited from the
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
mouth of PW1 except doing the business with the wife of
the accused and the very evidence given by the petitioner
was contrary to his own records, the evidence of DW1
cannot be believed and he deposes false before the Trial
Court and hence, his defence cannot be accepted unless
cogent evidence is placed before the Court. Hence, I do
not find any error committed by the Trial Court in
convicting and sentencing the accused and only excess
amount of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to pay the
compensation as against the Cheque amount of
Rs.4,00,000/-. When such being the material available on
record, I do not find any error committed by the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court also given the reason
while appreciating both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record. When such being the case, the Court
has to look into the legality and correctness in the orders
of both the Courts while exercising the revisional
jurisdiction and in order to reverse the order, I do not find
any error and any perversity in the finding of both the
Courts comes to other conclusion in exercising the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3145
revisional jurisdiction and hence, the orders not suffer
from any legality or correctness. Hence, no grounds are
made out in this revision petition.
Point No.2:
12. In view of discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
